Re: WM_NAME vs. _NET_WM_NAME

--===============5909522473907028946==
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=047d7b2e0b3fc7161b050669e577

--047d7b2e0b3fc7161b050669e577
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8

The rationale for having both is unclear, but for reference, WM_NAME is of
ICCCM encoding (meaning it's one of six thousand possible encodings,
specified by the TYPE atom), while _NET_WM_NAME is guaranteed to be UTF8,
which is just a lot simpler. So, consider WM_NAME deprecated, and
_NET_WM_NAME the replacement.

We might just want to fix the wm spec as Thomas suggests, rewording it to
"If set, the Window Manager MUST use this in preference to WM_NAME"

-- 
  Jasper

--047d7b2e0b3fc7161b050669e577
Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

<div dir=3D"ltr"><div>The rationale for having both is unclear, but for ref=
erence, WM_NAME is of ICCCM encoding (meaning it&#39;s one of six thousand =
possible encodings, specified by the TYPE atom), while _NET_WM_NAME is guar=
anteed to be UTF8, which is just a lot simpler. So, consider WM_NAME deprec=
ated, and _NET_WM_NAME the replacement.<br><br></div>We might just want to =
fix the wm spec as Thomas suggests, rewording it to &quot;If set, the Windo=
w Manager MUST use this in preference to WM_NAME&quot;<br clear=3D"all"><di=
v><div><div><div class=3D"gmail_extra"><br>-- <br>=C2=A0 Jasper<br>
</div></div></div></div></div>

--047d7b2e0b3fc7161b050669e577--

--===============5909522473907028946==
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Disposition: inline

_______________________________________________
wm-spec-list mailing list
[email protected]
https://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/wm-spec-list

--===============5909522473907028946==--